turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:In the Balance
What happened to Chapter 2 & etc.? It shoots off to the right of the display, at least when I view it. ML4E 01:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC) I've got 1 and 2. :TR's small edit seems to have fixed it. Don't know why. ML4E 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC) These chapter-by-chapter analyses are interesting but unless someone wants to finish all the other chapters (I doubt any of us have the time or interest) they're not too useful, more of a tease than anything else. And if we were to finish ItB, wouldn't we feel pressure to do all the other novels while we're at it? Turtle Fan 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC) :Perhaps the anonymous person will continue on. TR 16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Would be nice. I didn't realize he'd been here so recently. Meanwhile, I had assumed we could get all the chapters back with just a well-placed rollback but it seems it will be trickier with that. If we just restore an older version are choices are twelve chapters of thumbnails or just two chapters of details. Of course, just because I didn't understand the nature of our problem till recently doesn't mean that the rest of you haven't already figured that one out. Maybe I should not expose my ignorance by posting this paragraph. Oops, too late now. Turtle Fan 17:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC) And you can't even delete it because it will show up in the history. :) It looks like poster 72... put separate chapter headings on each section within Chapter 2 and then poster 77... (if not the same person) deleted the sub-headings in the article. In other words, and without having read the book, it looks like Chapter 2 is complete and Chapters 3-12 were never summarized. If 72... wants to continue, I would be most happy with him or her. ML4E 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Oh of course we'll let him continue if he wants. If he doesn't want to, though, we could have a bit of a mess on our hands. Should read it, it's a really good one. Turtle Fan 03:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Since this issue was never addressed again, I say we delete the chapter summaries, give a good overview, and list all the POVs who appear. TR 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, now that you mention it we're wildly inconsistent in how we write articles about novels. We'd better set a format. The one you suggest sounds good to me. Turtle Fan 20:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Works Set in Korea Was it? Johnathan added the cat today. :Why am I not surprised. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:19, December 15, 2018 (UTC) The sub-section on Korea implies the action is off-stage so the novel itself is not "set" there if that is the case. ML4E (talk) 19:02, December 15, 2018 (UTC) :I just rechecked--the Japanese carry Teerts from Harbin through Chosen and on to Japan so yes, it is a very brief setting. TR (talk) 19:09, December 15, 2018 (UTC) ::Such a tiny and inconsequential slice of the action that it can't possibly be of any interest to anyone. (And remember, I used to live in Korea! So if I don't care, it's hard for me to imagine who would.) Inserting stories into the "Works Set In--" categories for such tenuous connections will only serve to fill those categories with uninteresting trivialities, and to render those categories pointless. I really think we should not let this stand. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:19, December 15, 2018 (UTC) :::I disagree. Given HT's predilection for series, the "Works Set In" categories are already a fair mix of relevant settings and comparative trivialities. Sometimes, a single scene in Country A may be as relevant to a longer work as all the other scenes in Country B, and so its worth collecting those. ::::Sometimes, yes; but this is not one of those times. If there are other entries in these categories based on similarly trivial scenes, I'd sooner comb through and remove them than strengthen the precedent. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:52, December 16, 2018 (UTC) :::I wouldn't have created "Works Set in Korea" based on this single moment in ItB, but since we have the category for far more relevant works, I see no reason to leave iItB out. Our rules about category creation (which most of us adhere to) will still filter out the trivialities. TR (talk) 00:36, December 16, 2018 (UTC) ::::Most of us adhere to those rules, but the person responsible for this edit does not; and when he creates a heretofore non-existent category for something similar, you know he'll point to having gotten away with this one as justification. ::::Guess you're the tie-breaker, ML4E. We know Jonathan won't be chiming in, as he never defends his controversial edits till after we've overturned them. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:52, December 16, 2018 (UTC) :::::It does seem brief and inconsequential just a one scene transition through Korea. This doesn't seem to warrant inclusion as a setting unless I am misunderstanding what TR is describing. ML4E (talk) 21:54, December 17, 2018 (UTC) ::::::I think you have it. My position is that any setting no matter how incidental, is worth categorizing if we have a viable category. That appears to be the minority view at this point. TR (talk) 15:40, December 18, 2018 (UTC)